Aprepitant: drug-drug interactions in perspective

A Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Update: Current information on New Drugs, Old Drugs, Rescue/Treatment, Combination Therapies and Nontraditional Modalities

This article's objective is to present the latest evidence and information on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV continues to affect 30% of the surgical population causing patient dissatisfaction, extending length of stay, and increasing overall costs. This review includes the introduction of 2 new intravenous formulations of antiemetics (amisulpride, aprepitant), updates on nontraditional therapies, suggestions for combination prophylaxis, emerging data on rescue treatment, and considerations for special populations and settings. Both of the new antiemetics provide promising options for pharmacologic interventions for PONV with favorable safety profiles.

Portuguese consensus on the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatments

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) strongly affect the quality of life of patients with cancer. Inadequate antiemetic control leads to the decline of patients' quality of life, increases rescue interventions, and may even compromise adherence to cancer treatment. Although there are international recommendations for controlling CINV and RINV, these recommendations focus mainly on pharmacological management, with scarce information on additional measures that patients may adopt. Moreover, the prophylaxis and management of CINV/RINV are not always applied. Thus, we identified the need to systematize the strategies for preventing and managing CINV/RINV and the associated risk factors to implement and promote effective prophylactic antiemetic regimens therapy in patients with cancer. This review sought to create a set of practical recommendations for managing and controlling CINV/RINV, according to the current international recommendations for antiemetic therapy and the main risk factors. Conclusively, we intended to produce a patient-centered guidance document for health care professionals focused on the awareness, monitoring, and treatment of CINV/RINV.

A Novel Semi-Solid Self-Emulsifying Formulation of Aprepitant for Oral Delivery: An In Vitro Evaluation

Aprepitant is the first member of a relatively new antiemetic drug class called NK₁ receptor antagonists. It is commonly prescribed to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Although it is included in many treatment guidelines, its poor solubility causes bioavailability issues. A particle size reduction technique was used in the commercial formulation to overcome low bioavailability. Production with this method consists of many successive steps that cause the cost of the drug to increase. This study aims to develop an alternative, cost-effective formulation to the existing nanocrystal form. We designed a self-emulsifying formulation that can be filled into capsules in a melted state and then solidified at room temperature. Solidification was achieved by using surfactants with a melting temperature above room temperature. Various polymers have also been tested to maintain the supersaturated state of the drug. The optimized formulation consists of Capryol^TM 90, Kolliphor^® CS20, Transcutol^® P, and Soluplus^®; it was characterized by DLS, FTIR, DSC, and XRPD techniques. A lipolysis test was conducted to predict the digestion performance of formulations in the gastrointestinal system. Dissolution studies showed an increased dissolution rate of the drug. Finally, the cytotoxicity of the formulation was tested in the Caco-2 cell line. According to the results, a formulation with improved solubility and low toxicity was obtained.

Chronic pruritus: from pathophysiology to drug design

Pruritus, the most common symptom in dermatology, is an innate response capable of protecting skin against irritants. Nonetheless, when it lasts more than six weeks it is assumed to be a chronic pathology having a negative impact on people's lives. Chronic pruritus (CP) can occur in common and rare skin diseases, having a high prevalence in global population. The existing therapies are unable to counteract CP or are associated with adverse effects, so the development of effective treatments is a pressing issue. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying CP are not yet completely dissected but, based on current knowledge, involve a wide range of receptors, namely neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R), Janus kinase (JAK), and transient receptor potential (TRP) ion channels, especially transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) and transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 (TRPA1). This review will address the relevance of these molecular targets for the treatment of CP and molecules capable of modulating these receptors that have already been studied clinically or have the potential to possibly alleviate this pathology. According to scientific and clinical literature, there is an increase in the expression of these molecular targets in the lesioned skin of patients experiencing CP when compared with non-lesioned skin, highlighting their importance for the development of potential efficacious drugs through the design of antagonists/inhibitors.

[Antineoplastic drug-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric onco-hematology: 2022: Guidelines from the supportive care committee of the French Society of Childhood Cancer (SFCE)]

Nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatment (CINV) remain one of the most common and feared side effects in children despite the use of new drugs to prevent them. The existing recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of CINV are based on adult patients in Anglo-Saxon societies. Based on a recent review of the literature, we focused on specific pediatric issues in order to offer recommendations validated by the supportive care committee of the French society for childhood cancer.

Overestimation of the effect of (fos)aprepitant on intravenous dexamethasone pharmacokinetics requires adaptation of the guidelines for children with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common side effects in pediatric oncology treatment. Besides 5-HT₃-antagonists, both dexamethasone and aprepitant are cornerstone drugs in controlling these side effects. Based on results of adult studies, the dexamethasone dose is reduced by 50% when combined with aprepitant, because of a drug-drug interaction, even though data on the interaction in children is lacking. The current study was developed to investigate the effect of aprepitant on dexamethasone clearance (CL) in children, in order to assess if dexamethasone dose reduction for concomitant use of aprepitant is appropriate in the current antiemetic regimen.

Methods

In total, 65 children (0.6–17.9 years), receiving intravenous or oral antiemetic therapy (dexamethasone ± aprepitant) as standard of care, were included. 305 dexamethasone plasma concentrations were determined using LC–MS/MS. An integrated dexamethasone and aprepitant pharmacokinetic model was developed using non-linear mixed effects modelling in order to investigate the effect of aprepitant administration on dexamethasone CL.

Results

In this population, dexamethasone CL in patients with concomitant administration of aprepitant was reduced by approximately 30% of the uninhibited CL (23.3 L/h (95% confidence interval 20.4–26.0)). This result is not consistent with the results of adult studies (50% reduction). This difference was not age dependent, but might be related to the route of administration of dexamethasone. Future studies are needed to assess the difference in oral/intravenous dexamethasone.

Conclusion

When dexamethasone is given intravenously as a component of triple therapy to prevent CINV in children, we advise to reduce the dexamethasone dose by 30% instead of 50%.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07423-6.

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

Prolonged administration of aprepitant improves cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Aims: To determine the antiemetic efficacy of a 6-day aprepitant schedule in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin. Patients & methods: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer and who were chemotherapy naive were screened. The patients willing to use aprepitant were randomly divided into two groups: prolonged use of aprepitant (PA; 6-day aprepitant) and standard use of aprepitant (SA; 3-day aprepitant); the patients who rejected aprepitant were recruited into the control group (group C). Primary end points included the safety and the number of days without chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results: There was no statistical difference in adverse events among the three groups. The average days without chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting of group PA (18.28 ± 3.35) was significantly longer than in groups SA and C. Furthermore, better life function scores were achieved in group PA according to the Functional Living Index - Emesis questionnaire. Conclusion: In this study 6-day aprepitant was safe and more effective than standard 3-day aprepitant in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to 3-day cisplatin regimens.

The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia.

METHODS

The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods.

CONCLUSION

Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

The Prevalence of Polypharmacy and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions among Iranian Cancer Patients: which Patients Were at Risk?

INTRODUCTION

Drug-Drug interactions (DDIs) are one of the considerable consequences of polypharmacy. Due to the influence of polypharmacy and drug interactions on cancer treatment and patients` health outcomes, the present study aimed to determine the prevalence of polypharmacy and potential DDIs among adult cancer patients in Kerman province, southeast of Iran.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 315 cancer patients who referred to Kerman city oncology clinics were assessed in 2018. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews and medical charts were reviewed. Polypharmacy was defined as the use of at least five drugs simultaneously. Potential DDIs were checked using the "Drugs.com" online database. A bivariable and a multivariable logistic regression were used to determine the associated factors of outcome variables, polypharmacy status and potential DDI in SPSS software version 23.

RESULTS

Of 315 cancer patients, 191 patients (60.6%; 95% CI:54.9, 66) used at least five drugs during chemotherapy courses. The prevalence of potential DDIs was 59.6% (n = 140, 95% CI: 53.6-66.0. Experience co-morbid diseases (OR:6.60; 95%CI: 3.82, 11.42; P-value ≤0.0001), and positive metastatic status (OR:2.80; 95%CI: 1.62, 4.82; P-value ≤0.0001) could predict the polypharmacy during chemotherapy courses. Patients who suffered gastrointestinal cancers (OR:5.55; 95%CI: 2.26, 13.62; P-value ≤0.0001) and the number of prescribed or Over The Counter (OTC) drugs (OR:1.29; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.48; P-value <0.0001) predicted the occurrence of potential DDIs among cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the high prevalence of polypharmacy and potential drug interactions among Iranian cancer patients during chemotherapy courses, it is advisable for physicians, nurses, and pharmacists to be vigilant to improve prescribing patterns. In addition, with intensive monitoring, alternative treatment strategies can be replaced.

In Vitro Evaluation of a Solid Supersaturated Self Nanoemulsifying Drug Delivery System (Super-SNEDDS) of Aprepitant for Enhanced Solubility

Aprepitant (APR) belongs to Class II of the Biopharmaceutical Classification System (BCS) because of its low aqueous solubility. The objective of the current work is to develop self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS) of APR to enhance its aqueous solubility. Preformulation studies involving screening of excipients for solubility and emulsification efficiency were carried out. Pseudo ternary phase diagrams were constructed with blends of oil (Imwitor^® 988), cosolvent (Transcutol^® P), and various surfactants (Kolliphor^® RH40, Kolliphor^® ELP, Kolliphor^® HS15). The prepared SNEDDS were characterized for droplet size and nanoemulsion stability after dilution. Supersaturated SNEDDS (super-SNEDDS) were prepared to increase the quantity of loaded APR into the formulations. HPMC, PVP, PVP/VA, and Soluplus^® were used as polymeric precipitation inhibitors (PPI). PPIs were added to the formulations at 5% and 10% by weight. The influence of the PPIs on drug precipitation was investigated. In vitro lipolysis test was carried out to simulate digestion of formulations in the gastrointestinal tract. Optimized super-SNEDDS were formulated into free-flowing granules by adsorption on the porous carriers such as Neusilin^® US2. In vitro dissolution studies of solid super-SNEDDS formulation revealed an increased dissolution rate of the drug due to enhanced solubility. Consequently, a formulation to improve the solubility and potentially bioavailability of the drug was developed.

Targeting Nuclear Export Proteins in Multiple Myeloma Therapy

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable malignancy of plasma cells with a clinical course characterized by multiple relapses and treatment refractoriness. While recent treatment advancements have extended overall survival (OS), refractory MM has a poor prognosis, with a median OS of between 4 and 6 months. Nuclear export inhibition, specifically inhibition of CRM1/XPO1, is an emerging novel treatment modality that has shown promise in treatment-refractory MM. Initially discovered in yeast in 1983, early clinical applications were met with significant toxicities that limited their utility. The creation of small molecule inhibitors of nuclear export (SINE) has improved on toxicity limitations and has led to investigation in a number of malignancies at the preclinical and clinical stages. Preclinical studies of SINEs in MM have shown that these molecules are cytotoxic to myeloma cells, play a role in therapy resensitization, and suggest a role in limiting bone disease progression. In July 2019, selinexor became the first nuclear export inhibitor approved for use in relapsed/refractory MM based on the STORM trial. As of May 2020, there were eight ongoing trials combining selinexor with standard treatment regimens in relapsed/refractory MM. Eltanexor, a second-generation SINE, is also under investigation and has shown preliminary signs of efficacy in an early clinical trial while potentially having an improved toxicity profile compared with selinexor. Results in ongoing trials will help further define the role of SINEs in MM.

Sugammadex Effects on Hormonal Contraception Effectiveness: Implementation of Uniform Postoperative Teaching

PURPOSE

The purpose of this quality improvement project was to improve consistency of discharge teaching in women who used progesterone-containing hormonal contraceptive medications and received sugammadex during general anesthesia, as there is a risk of unintended pregnancy for 1 week after administration of sugammadex.

DESIGN

This project used a predesign and postdesign using two separate sample groups of patients and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) nurses.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 31 total women of childbearing age and 59 PACU nurses. Simplification of sugammadex discharge instructions was achieved by incorporating evidence-based recommendations for electronic discharge instructions and nursing education. PACU nurses were educated and surveyed before and after regarding frequency of discharge teaching, clarity, and comprehension of the after-visit summary and knowledge of sugammadex. Patients were called via telephone postoperatively to assess recall of sugammadex discharge teaching.

FINDINGS

Postoperative patient phone calls identified a small increase in patient recall of discharge instructions from 5 of 14 patients (35.7%) before implementation to 7 of 17 after implementation (41.2%). PACU nurse surveys indicated an increase in self-reported frequency of sugammadex discharge teaching (34.8% vs 64.2%, P = .024) and that new discharge instructions contained more clear, comprehensive information as compared with previous instructions (29.4% vs 75.5%, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This quality improvement project successfully implemented more consistent and comprehensive discharge instructions for women who receive sugammadex intraoperatively. Limitations of the project included a small sample size and short implementation intervals. As a result of switching to uniform discharge instructions, more patients received important discharge teaching from PACU nurses, and the percentage of patients who recalled this information increased.

Aprepitant for Cough Suppression in Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Although cough is a common and distressing symptom in patients with lung cancer, there is almost no evidence to guide treatment. Aprepitant, a centrally acting neurokinin-1 inhibitor, significantly decreased cough frequency in a pilot study.

METHODS

Patients with advanced lung cancer and cough lasting over 2 weeks despite a cough suppressant were randomized 1:1 to aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1 and then 80 mg orally on days 2 to 7 with physician's choice of antitussive; or to physician's choice of antitussive alone. Evaluation was at baseline and on days 3, 7, 9, and 12. The primary end point was subjective cough improvement on day 9, measured by the Visual Analog Scale and Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer Scale. Secondary end points included quality of life (QoL) as measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EORTC Lung Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire and toxicity.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2018, 128 patients were randomized. Median baseline cough duration was 90 days. Mean Visual Analog Scale scores (in mm) at baseline and day 9 were 68 and 39 in the aprepitant arm and 62 and 49 in the control arm, respectively (P < .001); mean Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer Scale scores at baseline and day 9 were 33 and 23 in the aprepitant arm and 30 and 25 in the control arm, respectively (P < .001). Overall QoL was not significantly different between the two arms; however, aprepitant led to a significant improvement in the cough-specific QoL domain (P = .017). Aprepitant did not increase severe adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant led to a significant improvement in cough in advanced lung cancer, without increasing severe side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Clinical Trials Registry-India; No.: CTRI/2017/05/008691; URL: http://ctri.nic.in.

Midazolam: an essential palliative care drug

Midazolam is a commonly used benzodiazepine in palliative care and is considered one of the four essential drugs needed for the promotion of quality care in dying patients. Acting on the benzodiazepine receptor, it promotes the action of gamma-aminobutyric acid. Gamma-aminobutyric acid action promotes sedative, anxiolytic, and anticonvulsant properties. Midazolam has a faster onset and shorter duration of action than other benzodiazepines such as diazepam and lorazepam lending itself to greater flexibility in dosing than other benzodiazepines. The kidneys excrete midazolam and its active metabolite. Metabolism occurs in the liver by the P450 system. This article examines the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, and clinical uses of midazolam in palliative care.

Perioperative Administration of Emend® (Aprepitant) at a Tertiary Care Children's Hospital: A 12-Month Survey

Introduction

Aprepitant (Emend^®) is a novel antiemetic agent that works through antagonism of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptors. To date, there are limited data regarding its use to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in children. We retrospectively reviewed our initial 12-months experience with aprepitant after it was made available for perioperative use.

Methods

The anesthetic records of patients who received aprepitant were retrospectively reviewed and demographic, surgical, and medication data retrieved.

Results

The study cohort included 31 patients (15 male and 16 female) ranging in age from 4 to 27 years (15.7 ± 7.4 years) and in weight from 14.4 to 175.7 kilograms (59.3 ± 30.2 kgs). Most of the patients (30 of 31) received the capsule form and 1 received the liquid. The average dose of aprepitant administered was 0.9 ± 0.6 mg/kg; however, only one patient received dosing expressed as mg/kg, and the majority received a 40 mg capsule. All of the patients in the cohort had either a previous history of PONV or risk factors for PONV. PONV occurred in the PACU in 1 patient and during the first 24 postoperative hours in 3 additional patients. No adverse effects related to aprepitant use were noted.

Conclusion

Aprepitant was easily added to the preoperative regimen for pediatric patients who may require it. Our approach limited overuse and subsequent cost concerns. Future studies with a comparator group and a greater sample size are needed to demonstrate its efficacy, especially in comparison to time-honored agents such as ondansetron. No adverse effects were noted in our limited study cohort.

Efficacy, Safety And Feasibility Of Antiemetic Prophylaxis With Fosaprepitant, Granisetron And Dexamethasone In Pediatric Patients With Hemato-Oncological Malignancies

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are a major burden for patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. International guidelines recommend an antiemetic prophylaxis with corticosteroids, 5-HT₃R-antagonists and NK₁R-antagonists. The NK₁R-antagonist fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients. There is little pediatric experience with fosaprepitant.

Methods

This non-interventional observation study analyzed 303 chemotherapy courses administered to 83 pediatric patients with a median age of 9 years (2-17 years), who received antiemetic prophylaxis either with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone (fosaprepitant group/FG; n=41), or granisetron with or without dexamethasone (control group/CG; n=42), during moderately (CINV risk 30-90%) or highly (CINV risk>90%) emetogenic chemotherapy. The two groups' results were compared with respect to the safety and efficacy of the antiemetic prophylaxis during the acute (0-24hrs after chemotherapy), delayed (>24-120hrs after chemotherapy) and both CINV phases. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were compared between the two cohorts.

Results

Adverse events were not significantly different in the two groups (p>0.05). Significantly fewer vomiting events occurred during antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant in the acute (23 vs 142 events; p<0.0001) and the delayed (71 vs 255 events; p<0.0001) CINV phase. In the control group, the percentage of chemotherapy courses with vomiting was significantly higher during the acute (24%/FG vs 45%/CG; p<0.0001) and delayed CINV phase (28%/FG vs 47%/CG; p=0.0004). Dimenhydrinate (rescue medication) was administered significantly more often in the CG, compared to the FG (114/FG vs 320/CG doses; p<0.0001). Likewise, in the control group, dimenhydrinate was administered in significantly more (p<0.0001) chemotherapy courses during the acute and delayed CINV phases (79 of 150; 52.7%), compared to the fosaprepitant group (45 of 153; 29.4%).

Conclusion

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron with or without dexamethasone was well tolerated, safe and effective in pediatric patients. However, larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate these findings.

The Significance of NK1 Receptor Ligands and Their Application in Targeted Radionuclide Tumour Therapy

To date, our understanding of the Substance P (SP) and neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) system shows intricate relations between human physiology and disease occurrence or progression. Within the oncological field, overexpression of NK1R and this SP/NK1R system have been implicated in cancer cell progression and poor overall prognosis. This review focuses on providing an update on the current state of knowledge around the wide spectrum of NK1R ligands and applications of radioligands as radiopharmaceuticals. In this review, data concerning both the chemical and biological aspects of peptide and nonpeptide ligands as agonists or antagonists in classical and nuclear medicine, are presented and discussed. However, the research presented here is primarily focused on NK1R nonpeptide antagonistic ligands and the potential application of SP/NK1R system in targeted radionuclide tumour therapy.

Latest Update on Prevention of Acute Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common cause of acute morbidity that impacts quality of life in children receiving cancer treatment. Here, we review the evolution of CINV prophylaxis guidelines in children, with an emphasis on the literature published in the last 5 years, to bring the reader up to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have led to the adoption of the "triple therapy" regimen of antiemetic prophylaxis (a 5-HT3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 antagonist) as the backbone of recommendations for the prevention of CINV in children. Areas of new data include the addition of aprepitant and inclusion of palonosetron as a non-inferior 5-HT3 antagonist. In addition, there are emerging pediatric data informing patient-derived risk factors associated with CINV risk and classification of antineoplastic drugs based on emetogenicity. Several recent pediatric studies have shaped published guidelines for CINV prophylaxis in children.

Clinical Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations in Treating Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) includes a variety of closely related malignancies that originate from lymphoid precursors. The majority of NHLs are of B-cell lineage, for which traditional therapy involves chemotherapy in combination with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab. Ongoing research into the pathogenesis of NHL subtypes has given rise to the use of novel agents that target specific molecular pathways. While the incidence of NHL extends over a range of ages from pediatric to elderly settings, the majority of diagnoses occur over age 60 years. Increasing the use of concomitant medication coupled with declining organ function among this group of patients creates pharmacokinetic (PK) challenges in administering a number of agents involved in the treatment of NHL. In addition, since many of the new agents are administered orally, there are a number of added PK factors that must be taken into consideration with their prescribing and administration. This article will review the available literature on the PK and pharmacodynamic properties of agents commonly used in the treatment of NHL, and intends to provide information that can assist with properly using these drugs in this setting.

Evaluation of thiamine for the prevention of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether thiamine prophylaxis decreases the incidence of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy in patients receiving ifosfamide for the treatment of lymphoma.

DESIGN

Retrospective, multi-center, cohort study.

PATIENTS

A total of 73 patients who received 187 total cycles of ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide chemotherapy for the treatment of lymphoma were included in this study. Forty-four of these patients (114 cycles) were included in the no-thiamine group and 29 (65 cycles) in the thiamine group.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The incidence of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy was measured using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and documentation in the patient chart. Regarding the primary endpoint of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy, eight patients (18.2%) in the no-thiamine group and three patients (10.3%) in the thiamine group experienced an event (p = 0.5087). No patient experienced more than one neurotoxic event.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference found in the incidence of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy with the addition of thiamine prophylaxis in patients receiving ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide-based chemotherapy regimens for lymphoma. Larger, prospective studies assessing the use of thiamine prophylaxis in this patient population are warranted to better assess its impact on the incidence of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists: review of their role for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults

Introduction: The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK₁RAs) to standard prophylaxis of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT₃RA) plus dexamethasone more effectively prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Areas covered: This review presents the evidence base for the use of oral and intravenous (IV) NK₁RAs, focusing on the pharmacologic and clinical properties as a class, and highlighting differences between agents. A PubMed literature search was conducted from 2000 to 2018. Expert opinion: Adherence to international antiemetic guidelines remains a clinical challenge. Strategies to simplify antiemetic regimens and facilitate their administration may improve compliance and treatment outcomes. The use of fixed-combination antiemetics offers clinical utility, in combining an NK₁RA with a 5-HT₃RA in a single oral dose. The use of long-lasting NK₁RAs and administering CINV prophylaxis closer to the time of chemotherapy may also assist with guideline and treatment compliance, diminishing the need for home-based administration, and potentially reducing resource utilization. The availability of IV and oral formulations of NK₁RAs and NK₁RA-5-HT₃RA fixed combinations offers further utility, particularly for those patients unsuited for oral administration. However, safety considerations with respect to injection site toxicity and hypersensitivity reactions of the new NK₁RA IV formulations deserve close attention.

Intravenous fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Fosaprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, approved for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The data on the use of fosaprepitant in children are limited and therefore we conducted a phase III randomized controlled trial.

PROCEDURE

Children aged 1-12 years scheduled to receive moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to arm-A (fosaprepitant) or arm-B (placebo). Children recruited to arm-A received intravenous ondansetron plus dexamethasone followed by fosaprepitant infusion. Children recruited to arm-B received the same drugs as those given to children in arm-A, except that fosaprepitant was substituted with a placebo. Ondansetron and dexamethasone were continued for 48 hours after completion of chemotherapy. The primary end point of the study was to determine the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting, no retching, and no use of rescue medication, during the 24-120 hours (delayed phase) after administration of the last dose of chemotherapy. Secondary end points were the proportion of patients who achieved a CR during the acute phase (0-24 hours) and overall after administration of the last dose of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

One-hundred-sixty-three patients were analyzed (81 in the fosaprepitant arm and 82 in the placebo arm). CR rates were significantly higher in the fosaprepitant arm compared to those in the placebo arm during the acute phase (86% vs 60%, P < 0.001), delayed phase (79% vs 51%, P < 0.001), and overall phase (70% vs 41%, P < 0.001). Three (4%) patients in the fosaprepitant arm and sixteen (20%) in the placebo arm required rescue anti-emetics (P = 0.0017).

CONCLUSION

Addition of fosaprepitant to ondansetron and dexamethasone improved chemotherapy-induced vomiting control in children treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation: review of the evidence and suggestions

INTRODUCTION

High-dose melphalan (HDMel) is the most common conditioning chemotherapy regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). No consensus exists for the emetogenicity or prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in this regimen.

METHODS

Data on the incidence and efficacy/safety of CINV prophylaxis among patients affected by MM undergoing autologous SCT with the HDMel regimen was extracted from electronic databases and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving multiple CINV prophylaxis regimens were identified and included. No consensus on HDMel emetogenicity was reached, but most studies summarized the emetogenicity as moderate-high risk. An aprepitant-based three-drug regimen (aprepitant + serotonin receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) + dexamethasone) showed better efficacy than a two-drug regimen (5HT3RA + dexamethasone) for CINV prevention without increasing the frequency in adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant-based three-drug regimen should be the regimen of choice for CINV prophylaxis for MM patients undergoing autologous SCT with HDMel conditioning.

Economic analysis of palonosetron versus granisetron in the standard triplet regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Japan (TRIPLE phase III trial)

Background

We conducted an economic assessment using test data from the phase III TRIPLE study, which examined the efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist as part of a standard triplet antiemetic regimen including aprepitant and dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Methods

We retrospectively investigated all medicines prescribed for antiemetic purposes within 120 h after the initiation of cisplatin administration during hospitalization. In the TRIPLE study, patients were assigned to treatment with granisetron (GRA) 1 mg (n = 413) or palonosetron (PALO) 0.75 mg (n = 414). The evaluation measure was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) assessed as the cost per complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching and no rescue medication). The analysis was conducted from the public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Results

The CR rates were 59.1% in the GRA group and 65.7% in the PALO group (P = 0.0539), and the total frequencies of rescue medication use for these groups were 717 (153/413 patients) and 573 (123/414 patients), respectively. In both groups, drugs with antidopaminergic effects were chosen as rescue medication in 86% of patients. The costs of including GRA and PALO in the standard triplet antiemetic regimen were 15,342.8 and 27,863.8 Japanese yen (JPY), respectively. In addition, the total costs of rescue medication use were 73,883.8 (range, 71,106.4–79,017.1) JPY for the GRA group and 59,292.7 (range, 57,707.5–60,972.8) JPY for the PALO group. The CERs (JPY/CR) were 26,263.4 and 42,628.6 for the GRA and PALO groups, respectively, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 189,171.6 (189,044.8–189,215.5) JPY/CR.

Conclusions

We found that PALO was more expensive than GRA in patients who received a cisplatin-based HEC regimen.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40780-018-0128-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nightmares and hallucinations with aprepitant and opium powder: a suspected drug-drug interaction

Polypharmacy of elderly oncology patients and fragmented medication management are well-known risk factors for drug-drug interactions (DDIs). These interactions can occur among antineoplastic, ongoing chronic treatment(s) and chemotherapy-associated treatments, like antiemetics. Clinically relevant interactions based on enzyme- or transporter-inhibition phenomena of active drugs can increase the frequency of their DDIs. We describe a strongly suspected elderly cancer patient's DDI between aprepitant and opium powder in the context of an irinotecan-based regimen manifested by nightmares and visual hallucinations. We discuss this DDI's hypothetical pharmacological mechanisms and management.

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

Effects of rolapitant administered orally on the pharmacokinetics of dextromethorphan (CYP2D6), tolbutamide (CYP2C9), omeprazole (CYP2C19), efavirenz (CYP2B6), and repaglinide (CYP2C8) in healthy subjects

Purpose

Rolapitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist indicated in combination with other antiemetic agents in adults for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We evaluated the effects of rolapitant oral on the pharmacokinetics of probe substrates for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 (dextromethorphan), 2C9 (tolbutamide), 2C19 (omeprazole), 2B6 (efavirenz), and 2C8 (repaglinide) in healthy subjects.

Methods

This open-label, multipart, randomized, phase 1 study assessed cohorts of 20–26 healthy subjects administered dextromethorphan, tolbutamide plus omeprazole, efavirenz, or repaglinide with and without single, oral doses of rolapitant. Maximum plasma analyte concentrations (C_max) and area under the plasma analyte concentration–time curves (AUC) were estimated using noncompartmental analysis, and geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of test (rolapitant plus probe substrate) to reference (probe substrate alone) treatment were calculated.

Results

Rolapitant significantly increased the systemic exposure of dextromethorphan in terms of C_max and AUC_0–inf by 2.2- to 3.3-fold as observed in GMRs on days 7 and 14. Rolapitant did not affect systemic exposure of tolbutamide, and minor excursions outside of the 80–125% no effect limits were detected for omeprazole, efavirenz, and repaglinide.

Conclusions

Inhibition of dextromethorphan by a single oral dose of rolapitant 180 mg is clinically significant and can last at least 7 days. No clinically significant interaction was observed between rolapitant and substrates of CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2B6, or CYP2C8. CYP2D6 substrate drugs with a narrow therapeutic index may require monitoring for adverse reactions if given concomitantly with rolapitant.

Influence of aprepitant on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of gliclazide in rats and rabbits

Background

Concomitant drug administration is a general phenomenon in patients with chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus. Among the currently available oral antidiabetic drugs, gliclazide is a commonly prescribed drug considering its multiple benefits in diabetic patients. Aprepitant is a commonly prescribed antiemetic drug which is mainly metabolized by CYP3A4, reported to have modest inductive and inhibitory effects on CYP2C9 and CYP3A4, respectively. Since gliclazide is metabolized by CYP2C9 (major) and CYP3A4 (minor), it is very difficult to predict the influence of aprepitant and its metabolic interaction with gliclazide. Considering the complexity associated with the combination of aprepitant and gliclazide, this study was designed to evaluate the influence of aprepitant on the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of gliclazide in animal models.

Methods

The PD interaction studies were conducted in both rodent (normal and alloxan-induced diabetic rats) and non-rodent (rabbits) animal models (n = 6) while the PK interaction study was conducted in normal rabbits (n = 6). An extrapolated human therapeutic oral dose of gliclazide, aprepitant and their combination were administered to rats and rabbits with 7 days washout between each treatment. For the multiple-dose interaction study, the same groups were administered with an interacting drug (aprepitant) for 7 days and then the combination of aprepitant and gliclazide on the 8th day. From the collected animal blood samples, blood glucose (by Glucose-Oxidase/Peroxidase method), insulin (by ELISA method) and gliclazide concentration levels (by HPLC method) were determined. Non-compartmental PK analysis was conducted by Phoenix WinNonlin software to determine the PK parameters of gliclazide. Statistical analysis was performed by student’s paired t-test.

Results

The pharmacodynamic activity (blood glucose reduction and insulin levels) of gliclazide was significantly (p < 0.05) influenced by aprepitant in normal and diabetic condition without any convulsions in animals. There was a significant (p < 0.05) increase in concentration levels and Area Under the Curve of gliclazide while significant (p < 0.05) decrease in clearance levels of gliclazide in rabbits. The PK interaction with gliclazide is relatively more with the multiple dose treatment of aprepitant over single dose treatment.

Conclusion

In combination, aprepitant significantly influenced the pharmacodynamic activity of gliclazide in animal models. Considering this, care should be taken when this combination is prescribed for the clinical benefit in diabetic patients.

Influence of aprepitant and localization of the patch on fentanyl exposure in patients with cancer using transdermal fentanyl

Background and Objectives

The cutaneous fentanyl patch is widely used to treat continuous pain in patients with cancer. Its use is hampered by a high inter- and intrapatient pharmacokinetic variability. Factors that influence this pharmacokinetic variability are largely unclear. The aim of these studies was to test if common patient variables, i) the use of the moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor aprepitant and ii) the localization of the fentanyl patch (upper arm versus thorax) influence systemic exposure to fentanyl in patients with cancer using a transdermal fentanyl patch.

Results

The AUC_{0-6 h} of fentanyl was 7.1% (95% CI: -28% to +19%) lower if patients concurrently used aprepitant, compared to the period when patients used fentanyl only. The AUC_{0-4 h} of fentanyl was 7.4% (95% CI: -22% to +49%) higher when the cutaneous fentanyl patch was applied to the upper arm compared to application at the thorax.

Conclusions

Neither the concurrent use of aprepitant, nor the localization of the fentanyl patch showed a statistically significant influence on fentanyl pharmacokinetics.

Methods

We performed two prospective cross-over pharmacokinetic intervention studies. Both studies had two eight-day study periods. At day 8 of each study period blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. In each study 14 evaluable patients were included.

Adverse events associated with aprepitant pediatric bone cancer patients

An eight-year long case series follow-up study with pediatric bone cancer patients was conducted to compare the occurrence of adverse events associated with aprepitant with official sources of drug information (manufacturer's leaflet, clinical trials, and European Medicines Agency leaflet). All patients admitted were analyzed, representing 192 aprepitant cycles. Anorexia, febrile neutropenia, and headache were observed in frequencies over 43.8 per 100 patients, which was higher than previous estimates. Adverse events were classified as probable or possible, by using Naranjo score. The increased rates of adverse events, especially on the risk febrile neutropenia, warrant further safety studies on this population.

Evaluation of aprepitant for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children and adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia receiving high-dose methotrexate

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) negatively impacts patients' quality of life. The emetogenicity of high-dose methotrexate in children and adolescents with cancer is incompletely characterized. At our institution, a number of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have received aprepitant with courses of high-dose methotrexate after poor CINV control with prior courses.

PROCEDURE

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis on patients with ALL who received methotrexate 5 g/m² /dose with and without concomitant aprepitant at Texas. Children's Hospital between October 1, 2010 and January 31, 2016.

RESULTS

We identified 16 patients who received a total of 69 courses of methotrexate. An enhanced antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant was administered with 42 methotrexate courses and resulted in a 54% reduction in the use of as-needed antiemetics (P = 0.002, 95% CI: 21-89%). There were no statistically significant differences in methotrexate area under the curve values (2,209 μM⋅hr/l ± 151 vs. 2,051 μM⋅hr/l ± 94, P = 0.355) or end-infusion methotrexate concentrations (80.5 μM ± 5.6 vs. 74.7 μM ± 3.2, P = 0.335) in patients receiving a standard versus an enhanced antiemetic regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of aprepitant reduces both CINV and the use of rescue antiemetics. Aprepitant does not appear to affect the pharmacokinetics of methotrexate. Granisetron was prescribed more frequently than ondansetron, but selection of secondary and tertiary agents, if any, was highly variable.

Single-dose palonosetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in breast and colorectal cancer patients

Aims and background

Palonosetron, a unique second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, has been demonstrated to control emesis related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron followed by a single dose of dexamethasone in patients with breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

Methods and study design

Chemotherapy-naive BC and CRC patients were given MEC as adjuvant or first-line treatment. Palonosetron (0.25 mg IV) and dexamethasone (8 mg IV) were administered before chemotherapy on day 1. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall study period (days 1–5). The antiemetic response was evaluated during the acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2–5) phases.

Results

Sixty-eight patients were enrolled (median age 61 years, 56 females; BC = 40, CRC = 28). CR was observed in 46 of 68 patients (67.6%), while CR during the acute and delayed phases was 75.0% in each cancer group. The antiemetic regimen was well tolerated.

Conclusions

A single administration of palonosetron and dexamethasone on day 1 in BC and CRC patients adequately controls CINV during the entire period of emetic risk.

Antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid for ABVD therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background

Antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) therapy.

Methods

A total of 39 patients were eligible for this study. Before ABVD therapy, granisetron or palonosetron was intravenously administered with or without a corticosteroid (dexamethasone or hydrocortisone) and aprepitant. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (0–120 h after the start of ABVD therapy), acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) phases were evaluated. CC was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication with only grade 0–1 nausea.

Results

Granisetron and palonosetron were administered in 21 and 18 patients, respectively. The CC rate during the acute, delayed and overall phases was not statistically different between the two groups. The CINV was completely controlled during overall phase in 58.3% of patients receiving granisetron or palonosetron in combination with a corticosteroid, whereas in 11.1% of those without co-treatment of a corticosteroid (P < 0.05). There were significantly higher frequencies of anorexia, leucopenia and neutropenia in the palonosetron group. There is a statistically significant difference in the frequency of febrile neutropenia between presence and absence of a corticosteroid (p = 0.024).

Conclusion

These findings suggested that a combination use of a corticosteroid with a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist was preferable for CINV control in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving ABVD therapy, although the careful management of febrile neutropenia is required.

Trial registration

The study approval numbers in the institution; 24–12 and 24–359. Registered April 17, 2012 and June 21, 2012.

Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of rolapitant, NK-1 receptor antagonist for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Although chemotherapeutic agents represent a cornerstone of cancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) affect the patients' quality of life and basic daily activities. Rolapitant is a novel selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA), which was clinically approved for prevention of CINV. The aim of the present study is to synthesize evidence about the safety and efficacy of rolapitant in combination with other antiemetic agents for prophylaxis against CINV. We performed a web-based literature search of six authentic databases to identify eligible studies. Safety and efficacy endpoints were extracted and pooled as odds ratios (ORs) in a fixed-effect meta-analysis model, using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software for windows. Five randomized controlled trials (n = 2984) were pooled in the final analysis. Rolapitant (180mg) in combination with a serotonin-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone was superior to placebo plus 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in term of complete response rate in the acute (OR = 1.4, 95% CI [1.16, 1.7]) and the delayed phases (OR = 1.68, 95% CI [1.44, 1.96]). Moreover, rates of complete protection were significantly higher with rolapitant 180mg than with placebo in the overall, acute, and delayed phases (OR = 1.52, 95% CI [1.3, 1.76]), OR = 1.24, 95% CI [1.04, 1.49], and OR = 1.5, 95% CI [1.29, 1.75]), respectively. In conclusion, rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and more effective than 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV.

Successful management of refractory diabetic gastroparesis with long-term Aprepitant treatment

BACKGROUND

People with gastroparesis who develop treatment-resistant (refractory) disease pose a difficult challenge, especially in the setting of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or post pancreas transplant. Aprepitant (a neurokinin-receptor antagonist) is licensed for the short-term treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea. There is lack of information on its long-term efficacy and safety in people with diabetic gastroparesis.

CASE REPORT

Case 1 was 73-year-old man with Type 2 diabetes of 25 years' duration and ESRD requiring dialysis. He was referred to our unit as his severe symptoms of gastroparesis had failed to respond to multiple medications and resulted in frequent hospital admissions. Aprepitant, which can be used in ESRD, resulted in significant improvement in his symptoms of nausea and vomiting within weeks, and he remained on this long term (18 months) with continued benefits and had no further gastroparesis-related hospital admissions. Case 2 was a 44-year-old man with Type 1 diabetes of 41 years' duration with a history of severe hypoglycaemic events that required a pancreas transplant. Despite normoglycaemia, his symptoms of gastroparesis persisted and failed to respond to multiple medications and frequent botulinum toxin injections. He was commenced on aprepitant with significant improvement in symptoms and has remained on treatment for 12 months with sustained benefits.

CONCLUSION

We describe two cases in which long-term aprepitant treatment proved effective in alleviating severe symptoms of gastroparesis that had failed to respond to conventional first-line medical treatments. Our cases highlight the need for novel treatments for managing refractory diabetic gastroparesis.

Recent developments in the clinical pharmacology of rolapitant: subanalyses in specific populations

Knowledge of the involvement of the neurokinin substance P in emesis has led to the development of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1 RAs) for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in combination with serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. The NK-1 RA rolapitant, recently approved in oral formulation, has nanomolar affinity for the NK-1 receptor, as do the other commercially available NK-1 RAs, aprepitant and netupitant. Rolapitant is rapidly absorbed and has a long half-life in comparison to aprepitant and netupitant. All three NK-1 RAs undergo metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, necessitating caution with the concomitant use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, but in contrast to aprepitant and netupitant, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce CYP3A4. However, rolapitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, and concomitant use with CYP2D6 substrates with narrow therapeutic indices should be avoided. Aprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant have all demonstrated efficacy in the control of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in randomized controlled trials, including over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. We reviewed recent post hoc analyses of clinical trial data demonstrating that rolapitant is efficacious in the control of CINV in patient populations with specific tumor types, namely, breast cancers, gastrointestinal/colorectal cancers, and lung cancers. In addition, we show that rolapitant has efficacy in the control of CINV in specific age groups of patients receiving chemotherapy (<65 and ≥65 years of age). Overall, the safety profile of rolapitant in these specific patient populations was consistent with that observed in primary analyses of phase 3 trials.

Drug-drug interactions in pediatric oncology patients

BACKGROUND

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can negatively affect pharmacotherapy. However, pediatric DDI studies are scarce. We undertook an exploratory study to investigate prevalence and clinical relevance of DDIs between cytostatic and noncytostatic drugs in outpatient pediatric oncology patients.

PROCEDURE

After informed consent and inclusion, the following information was collected: currently prescribed noncytostatic and cytostatic drugs, comorbidities, and use of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs), and dietary supplements. All medication was screened for DDIs according to two databases: Micromedex^® Solutions and the Dutch drug database G-Standard. The researcher presented DDIs with an associated potential for adverse outcome and a proposal for intervention to three independent experts. If the experts considered a DDI to be potentially clinically relevant and requiring intervention, the physician was notified.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were included (median age 8.9 years). A total of 67 different DDIs were counted (66 in Micromedex^® Solutions, 14 in G-Standard, and 13 DDIs in both databases). The medication reviews resulted in 35 interventions related to 11 different DDIs. The majority of DDIs concerned noncytostatic drugs (25/35) and one third occurred between cytostatic and noncytostatic drugs (10/35). The use of QTc-interval-prolonging drugs resulted in one intervention. The use of OTC drugs, CAM, or dietary supplements did not lead to DDIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in a selection of 11 potentially clinically relevant DDIs for 73 outpatients in our pediatric oncology department. Interventions were formulated in close collaboration between physicians and clinical pharmacists. Future research should focus on assessing DDIs concerning QTc-interval prolongation.

Aprepitant in pediatric patients using moderate and highly emetogenic protocols: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To review the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone (triple therapy) in children and adolescents on moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and congress abstracts published until September 2016 were used as data sources. Two reviewers independently selected manuscripts and extracted data. A third reviewer solved discrepancies in study selection and data extraction. The primary outcome was overall complete response (no vomiting from 0 to 120 h). Secondary outcomes were: response in acute phase, delayed phase and reported toxicities. Each study was considered a unit of analysis. Summarized relative risks were recalculated based on reported data. All meta-analyses used a random-effects model and heterogeneity was reported using the I2 method.

RESULTS

From 1004 studies, we screened 288 titles and abstracts and included three trials for data extraction. The population comprised 451 patients. Most patients were males, ranging from 6 months to 19 years of age, and weighing from 6 to 134 kg. Bone cancer was the most incident (≥50%) neoplasm, followed by rhabdomyosarcoma and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Triple therapy was associated with a reduced risk of developing chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) (RR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.67). There were no differences in incidence of febrile neutropenia between groups (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.66-1.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy decreased CIV risk, without increasing the occurrence of febrile neutropenia. However, this review could not address which subpopulations would most benefit from using this strategy. Future studies should focus on assessing risk factors for nausea and vomiting, as many patients did not achieve a complete antiemetic response.

Prevention of cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced delayed nausea and vomiting using triple antiemetic regimens: a mixed treatment comparison

A variety of triple antiemetic regimens are being used to prevent cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced delayed emesis and nausea in cancer patients. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of the different regimens. Electronic searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases were performed to identify randomized controlled trials, and data were analyzed using JAGS, Stata 14.0 and R project. The primary outcome was a complete response (CR). The secondary outcomes were no vomiting (NV) and no nausea (NN). Among the 398 studies identified, 10 were eligible and included, providing data on nine regimens. In the CR analysis, the absolute rank of netupitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone (NEPA) was 0.8579. In the NV and NN analyses, NEPA's absolute ranks were 0.8631 and 0.7902, respectively. The compliance of patients treated with rolapitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (RGD) was the best due to a low incidence of adverse events, and good compliance was also observed with NEPA. It was difficult to achieve good compliance with aprepitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (AGD). Overall, NEPA was the best regimen, and aprepitant + ondansetron + dexamethasone (AOD) is also worthy of recommendation because of its low cost and good effect. For patients with severe constipation, hiccups, asthenia and/or delayed nausea, RGD is worthy of consideration.

Randomized Multicenter Phase II Study of Modified Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil (DCF) Versus DCF Plus Growth Factor Support in Patients With Metastatic Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Study of the US Gastric Cancer Consortium

PURPOSE

Docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) is a standard first-line three-drug chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma and is associated with significant toxicity. We examined the safety and efficacy of a modified DCF (mDCF) regimen in a randomized multicenter phase II study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Previously untreated patients with metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either mDCF (fluorouracil 2,000 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] over 48 hours, docetaxel 40 mg/m2 IV on day 1, cisplatin 40 mg/m2 IV on day 3, every 2 weeks) or parent DCF (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cisplatin 75 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 750 mg/m2 IV over 5 days with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, every 3 weeks). The study had 90% power to differentiate between 6-month progression-free survival of 26% and 43%, with type I and II error rates of 10% each. An early stopping rule for toxicity was included, defined as grade 3 to 4 adverse event rate > 70% in the first 3 months.

RESULTS

From November 2006 to June 2010, 85 evaluable patients were enrolled (male, n = 61; female, n = 24; median age, 58 years; Karnofsky performance status, 90%; GEJ, n = 28; gastric, 57). mDCF (n = 54) toxicity rates included 54% grade 3 to 4 toxicity (22% hospitalized) within the first 3 months and 76% grade 3 to 4 toxicity over the course of treatment. The DCF arm (n = 31) closed early because of toxicity, with rates of 71% grade 3 to 4 toxicity (52% hospitalized) within 3 months and 90% grade 3 to 4 toxicity over the course of treatment. Six-month PFS was 63% (95% CI, 48% to 75%) for mDCF and 53% (95% CI, 34% to 69%) for DCF. Median overall survival was improved for mDCF (18.8 v 12.6 months; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

mDCF is less toxic than parent DCF, even when supported with growth factors, and is associated with improved efficacy. mDCF should be considered a standard first-line option for patients with metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Drug interactions with aprepitant or fosaprepitant: Review of literature and implications for clinical practice

Purpose Aprepitant and its parenteral formulation fosaprepitant are widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Aprepitant exerts modest inhibitory effect on CYP3A4 and modest inductive effect on CYP2C9 substrates such as some antineoplastics and multiple other medications. This article is aimed to provide pharmacists and other healthcare professionals with an updated summary of drug-drug interactions of aprepitant/fosaprepitant and implications for clinical practice. Method We reviewed publications reporting drug-drug interactions between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and other medications. Results Coadministration of aprepitant with antineoplastics or opiods may result in significant elevations in the serum levels of the agents metabolized via CYP3A4, with the best documentation for cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, erlotinib and oxycodone. These alterations did not translate into adverse outcomes and/or necessitate dosing adjustments. The levels of warfarin were significantly decreased by aprepitant requiring prolonged monitoring after discontinuation of aprepitant. Among direct oral anticoagulants, a theoretical interaction between aprepitant and rivaroxaban or apixaban exists. Interactions between aprepitant and quetiapine or diltiazem or sirolimus required dose reductions to avoid adverse outcomes. The intravenous route had a weaker inhibitory effect on CYP3A4 than the oral pathway. Conclusion The evidence on drug interactions of aprepitant with other medications is limited, and the impact on therapeutic outcomes remains to be determined. The intravenous regimen may be a preferred option. As utilization of aprepitant is expanding, practitioners and patients need to be educated about the potential for drug interactions and a need for careful monitoring of patients concurrently receiving aprepitant and CYP2C9 or CYP3A4 substrates, especially those with a narrow therapeutic window.